Marketing 2010

I had a thought that I wanted to preserve and claim credit for. Here it is as a quick and non-controversial blog posting:

Words Are Important

I still have not listened to or read the president's State of the Union address. I have, as discussed in my last posting, been listening to the commentators on FOX. As a result, I understand from former NYC mayor Rudy Gulliani that the president is soft on terrorism because he barely mentioned the subject in the address. I understand that the president has failed at everything he has attempted to do in the last year, including closing Guantanamo, passing comprehensive health care, and bringing our troops home. Significantly, I am now aware that the president did not learn the lesson from the recent Senate election in Massachusetts and accept the referendum on his policies from the electorate in that great Commonwealth.

My last posting drew a lot of comments from my more conservative friends. I am grateful to them for their efforts to enlighten me. From them, I now realize that the president's middle name is indicative of his secret anti-American sympathies, that he is working above his pay grade because he said so when asked a question about bio-science with a quip while campaigning for office, that he is out of touch with the American people, that he excludes the GOP from participating in the legislative process and that he is responsible for a host of other ills plaguing our country.

I am not buying it. I was going to argue about the demagoguery coming from the right but, after the president's visit to the conference of Republican House members in Baltimore last week, I don't need to. If you take the time to click here and watch the unscripted, televised live exchange between the president and members of the GOP House caucus, and you're being honest, you cannot help but come away admiring the president. You don't have to agree with his policies; he acknowledges that there will be differences. However, if you think of the political risk the president took by taking on questions from the caucus on live television, working without notes, you realize it's a far cry from having a president who would not admit to making a single mistake and who would only appear at town hall meetings that were filled with his pre-screened supporters. Add in the obvious intelligence and command of the facts with which the president responded to each and every question and challenge, and the provocative smears and half-truths used to attack the administration (and win elections in Massachusetts) ring particularly hollow.

Please watch the linked video. It really is amazing and demonstrates why I am so much more comfortable with Barack Hussein Obama sitting in the Oval Office while he takes the necessary time to address our challenges than with any of the alternatives.

Finally, I used to think the definition of "chutzpah" was the story of the son who murdered his parents and asked the court for mercy because he was an orphan. I now think it's the story of Republicans who railed incessantly against allowing prisoners from Guantanamo to be moved to secure prisons in the United States, delaying the president's plan to close the prison, and then belittled the president because he did not keep his promise to close Guantanamo within the year.

Similar examples abound and, as a result, I find the vitriol spewed on FOX to be the height of hypocrisy. Guess which network cut from the president has he responded to questions from the GOP caucus last week to take comments from the president's critics? It's one thing to merely call yourself "fair and balanced". It's another to allow both sides of the debate to be aired before directing your viewers to agree with your agenda.